[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13468-13469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  0200

  Maybe my colleagues will see the value of their work and move it up 
to ages higher than that. Maybe they will see the value of their work 
and close the loopholes that have been noted by my colleague from 
California, but at this time I would ask my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I will not consume very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to recapitulate what this amendment is 
about. It is a very straightforward, very simple amendment. There are 
not any loopholes in it, with all due respect to my colleagues who may 
think there are.
  It deals with conforming the law with respect to these long guns that 
are labeled under the law, whatever one's views on whether they should 
be or not, assault weapons, with the laws that exist today with respect 
to juveniles and handguns.
  The reality is that the law a few years ago defines assault weapons 
made and imported and whatnot after a certain year, I think it was 
1994, for everybody. But for those that existed and do exist pre-1994, 
I think, or the year in which that ban occurred, there is still a 
lawful possession of those weapons for any of those that anybody may 
have owned.
  Yet, there is a loophole that exists in current law with regard to 
minors. They are allowed to possess these weapons. So consequently, it 
is my desire and what this amendment does I think pretty clearly is 
make it clear that there is going to be, if this is adopted, absolutely 
no opportunity for youngsters to possess, use or otherwise have in 
their possession any of these pre-1994 pre-banned weapons that may be 
around, unless there is the same adult supervision or under the same 
conditions that that youngster might possess a handgun.
  Those are very restrictive conditions under the current law on 
handguns.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, when I found the amendment I did go read through the 
statutory scheme and I could see very clearly that the gentleman was 
conforming this amendment to the scheme that he has just referenced.
  The question I have is whether or not assault weapons should not be 
treated a little bit differently than rifles? And as I mentioned 
earlier, 17-year-olds out on the ranch out in the Mount Hamilton range 
where the wild boars and rattlesnakes are, and they are out in the 
pickup trucks with the cattle with the rifle, and to me that is a lot 
different than having a semiautomatic assault weapon.
  So the question is, did the gentleman mean to make assault weapons 
really in the same posture and standing as rifles on the farm?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I would 
simply say to the gentlewoman that a regular rifle that does not fit 
this definition, even after this amendment is passed and under current 
law, can be possessed by a juvenile without the same restrictions that 
there are on handguns. The law is not going to change with regard to 
that. With regard to these peculiar weapons, the adult supervision will 
be required. Maybe the gentlewoman, as she says, thinks the child 
should not be able to possess this peculiar set of weapons even if 
there is adult supervision. I understand that concern. However, we 
could redebate, I suppose, that old assault weapon debate all over 
again.
  My point, if I could just make the point, is that all of these 
weapons that we are talking about, all this category of rifles have the 
same functional characteristics, the same firepower, the same killing 
power, whatever we want to call it, whatever we label them. It is just 
that this particular category of weapon has been perceived by some 
having characteristics of a certain type of stock and so forth to not 
be one that certainly children should have in their possession, because 
they are glamorized so much by so many people who use these weapons in 
very bad ways.
  So I think that the gentlewoman and I probably agree on one point, 
and that is that children, certainly without supervision, should not be 
touching these weapons, but I think the gentlewoman would just like to 
go further than I do in some manner in this amendment, but I would not 
think the gentlewoman would have any problem with the amendment because 
I can assure her that the amendment does not in any way create 
additional loopholes to current law. It is just restrictive. It is not 
in any way expansive.
  I simply want to be sure, if we have a disagreement, we understand 
what we are disagreeing over.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we do disagree, but if the gentleman's point is 
that right now children can lawfully possess assault weapons, without 
any restrictions and therefore this is better because they can have 
assault weapons if they are farmers or if they are employed they could 
have an assault weapon, is that essentially the point that the 
gentleman is making?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. That is the point I am making. They can have these 
weapons under the conditions that they could have a handgun. That is my 
point.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, then I do object.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. There is absolutely no restriction right now 
whatsoever.
  Ms. LOFGREN. We do very much disagree, and I thank the gentleman for 
yielding for this question.

[[Page 13469]]


  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is well made and I 
think the bill is very self-explanatory. It is restrictive. It does 
restrict the availability of these weapons very severely from current 
law for young people. Maybe we ought to go further than the amendment 
goes even, but it nonetheless is a very restrictive amendment and that 
is the purpose of offering it.
  With that, I urge the adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 209, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Barr of Georgia) having resumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2122) to require background checks at gun shows, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________